E407 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DODDSDEbSfil 






^-..^^ 






S-^o'^' \'^^^V^ "v'^^o"' \;^Pv^ " 






-»* - -e^ ^ "' «r 



*^ •-" A° ^ "^ <^^ 






•*b>^ 








55 • ^-^ t^ * 








'*^^^'' -^ 





















JlO-TS 



^ ''^ <V^ O^ '..o <v. 




.^^ 










o • » " A < 












^9^ 




'^^ •"" n^'' .,. 

















%c^ 



r^- 



SPEECH 




^ _^ OF 

MR. R!' W. T^IPSON, OF INDIANA, 



/ 



n 



i> ON THE REFERENCE OF THE 

rrvESIDENT^S ANiXUAL MESSAGE. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JANUARY 27, 1848. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration the Annual Message 
of the President of the United Slates, and t!ie resolutions referring it to appropriate Committees, 

MR. R. W. THOMPSON, of Indiana, addressed the Committee as follows : 

Mr. Chairman: 

I do not know that I should have felt myself at all called upon to address the Com- 
mittee upon the several subjects towards which its attention has been directed for 
the last week or ten days, if it were not that I feel a kind of necessity for doing 
what 1 have never before done in my life — that is, to define my position. About 
four weeks ago I was represented by a newspaper in New York as having made a 
speech of some hour's length upon this floor, advocating the entire conquest and sub- 
jugation of Mexico. On the day before yesterday I was represented by the "Union'* 
of this city as having made another speech, justifying the entire course of policy 
pursued by the present Administration in the origin, prosecution, and objects of the 
war with Mexico. For fear, therefore, that somebody should suppose I might pos- 
sibly have made a speech of this kind, I deem it expedient to take this opportunity 
to declare what are the sentiments I really entertain upon this question; and I 
think I shall convince gentlemen, before I get through, that I have neither made the 
one nor the other of those speeches. 

My chief purpose in now rising is to notice several of the positions taken by gen- 
tlemen upon the other side of this chamber — positions which I think have been taken 
with great care and great reflection, with a view to defend the A.dministration, not 
only in the origin, but in the progress of this war; and more especially to notice some 
of the remarkable features which I find in the speech made several days ago by the 
gentleman from Maryland, from the Baltimore district, (I\Ir. McLane.) I do not 
hesitate to characterize this as a remarkable speech, not only becavise it was delivered 
on this floor with great ingenuity, with great power, and with great eloquence, but 
because it went a bow-shot — an hundred bow-shots — beyond all tlic speeches which 
have been made here in the assumption of positions which I consider to be erroneous, 
and which not only do injustice to the Congress of the United States and the people 
of the United States, but manifest, marked injustice to the distinguished commander 
of our army, General Taylor. The gentleman, in my conception, has entirely mis- 
talcen the great questions of history which are involved in the origin and pro-ocution 
of the war, and has made these questions, thus misstated by him, subserve what, I 
think I shall be able to show, were exclusively and entirely the party purposes of 
this Administration. 

The gentleman's speech, as originally written out by himself, I presume, and pub- 
lished in the *'Union," contained the assumpticn — in orcer to justify the Preeidcn.* 



T*Y7 



■v^' 



of the United States In the issuance of the order of the 13th January, 1846, for the 
march of the army to the valley of the Rio Grande — that the President, ia his mes- 
sage of December, 1845, had communicated to Congress the fact that General Tay-^ 
lor had been ordered to march the army to the valley of the Rio Grande. I quote 
his words. He says: "In December, 1845, Congress was informed that General 
Taylor had been assigned to the defence of the country west to the Rio Grande." 

Now, I have carefully looked into the histor^a•l||yl^s thing; I have carefully ex- 
amined all the public documents upon which I c^^^smy hands, and nowhere do I 
find, from the beginning to the end of all the coi^^Hlcations which emanated from 
the President of the United States in December, ^Wy, or prior to that time, the de- 
claration thai; General Taylor had been ordered to march the troops under his com- 
mand to the Rio Grande. There was no such message, no such document to be 
found, no such political fact recorded in the history of the country. The President 
of the United States did communicate to Congress in December, 1845, (hat he had 
assigned General Taylor to the command of the army, and that his position was to 
be taken bdiveen the Nueces and the Rio Grande; but not that he was to march to 
the Rio Grande. The Secretary of War, at the commencement of that session, 
communicated to Congress intelligence of the fact that General Taylor had been as- 
signed to the command of the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, with 
an '■'■ultimate destination^^ to the Rio Grande — with a purpose of ultimately occupying 
the valley of the Rio Grande; but nowhere, either in the message of the President, 
or in the report of tlie Secretary of War, was there any communication made to 
Congress that General Taylor was assigned to the command of the army, and or- 
dered to march to the Rio Grande. 

But, ill the published speech of the gentleman in pamphlet form, I find a much 
greater mistake upon this subject. It was there declared that the President, in De- 
cember, 1845, gave notice to Congress that General Taylor had been assigned to the 
defence of the country "west of the Rio Grande." 

[Mr. McLane explained that this was a mistake. It should have been "west to 
the Rio Grande." He requested the gentleman from Indiana to read from the doc- 
ument which he handed him.] 

Mr. Thompson read as follows, from the President's message of 2d December, 
1845: 

*' Our army was ordered to take position in the country between the Nueces and the Del Norte, and 
to repel any invasion of the Texan territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces." 

Also the following, from the despatch of Mr. Bancroft, of June 15, 1845, to Gene- 
ral Taylor: 

"The point of your ultimate destination is the western fiontier of Texas, where you will select 
and occupy, on or near the Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as will consist with the health of the 
troops, and will be best adapted to repel invasion, and to protect what, m the event of annexation, will 
be our western border." 

Sir, neither of the positions of the gentleman are true, so far as they undertake 
to give a part of the public history of the times. There was no such order issued to 
General Taylor — no such fact communicated to Congress. He was ordered to take 
position betvjeeji the Nueces and the Rio Grande, with the "ultimnte^^ object of pro- 
tecting the valley of the Rio Grande; and the extracts which I now read, at the re- 
quest of the gentleman, prove this beyond controversy, and they prove nothing more. 
The express declaration of the President, in his message of 2d December, 1845, 
is that General Taylor had been ordered to take position '■^between the Nueces and 
the Del Norte*" Where was that position? Was it in the valley of the Rio Grande, 
with a view to its protection, as the gentleman asserts.' No, sir, it was at Corpus 
Christi, in the valley of the Nueces — more than one hundred and fifty miles from 
the Rio Grande — from whence no protection could be given to that valley without 
marching the army across the "stupendous desert" which intervenes. 

The last extract I have ready at the instance of the gentleman, is still more ex- 
plicit than that from the mcssa'ge of the President. It declares that the valley of 
the Rio Grande v/as only the ^'■ultimate destination" of the army; that it was not 
the.i to be protected, but might be thsreafter. But it proves nothing in the present 



controversy, and has no relation to it; for it is part of an order issued before the an- 
nexation of Texas to this country, and under which General Taylor took position at 
Corpus Christi, and remained there many months — not to protect the valley of the 
Rio Grande, but to resist the inva^^ion of Texas by the army of Mexico, if such in- 
vasion should be attempted. ' 

But the next position, untenable as I think it is, taken by the gentleman from 
Maryland, is the assumption that, by the act of Texas in the formation of her con- 
stitution, with which she wasf tidmitted into this Union, she adopted the statute of 
the Republic of Texas of 1836 as a part of her fundamental law; and that, by the 
admission of Texas into the Union, after the resolution of annexation was passed, 
with that constitution, she became, as a consequence, a part of this Union, to the 
-extent of boundaries laid down in that statute. 

I again quote the gentleman's own words. He says: 

"A reference to this act of admission of the State of Texas, (29!li December, 1845,) will show that 
it was the State of Texas tliat was admitted, with a constitution already formed, affii-minjr tiie declara- 
tory statutes which defined the boundary west to the Rio Grande ; an(l with such boundary she was 
admitted a State into the Union." 

I understood that, in the speech of the gentleman, as delivered here the other day, 
he first assumed that the constitution of Texas, existing at the time of her admission 
into this Union, defined her boundary line, in express terms, to be the Rio Grande; 
but that he afterwards changed his position, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Kaufman) came to his aid, and then assumed the position expressed in the extract 
I have read. 

Let us, Mr. Chairman, look into the history of this question. If Texas had the 
right to pass that act, and thereby acquired the boundary claimed by it, and if the 
Congress of the United States did adopt that claiin, of course there is now no ques- 
tion about it. But if Texas had no right to pass that law, if she acquired no title by 
it, then the whole claim set up by the President in belialf of the United States, and 
in his own defence founded upon it, falls to the ground. 

Now, sir, the boundary of Texas, before her revolt against Mexico, was just as 
well defined as is the boundary between the District of Columbia and Maryland and 
Virginia. Originally the territory of Texas constituted a very ti-iall portion of what 
she afterwards possessed. Having been constituted a State, with Coahuila, of the 
Mexican Confederacy, the boundary between Texas and Coahuila and Tamaulipas 
was well known to be the Nueces. How, then, did she acquire boundary beyond 
that river.' The gentleman admitted that the Texas which revolutionized was the 
Texas which was admitted into this Union. Then, she acquired no title but by revo- 
lution — no title that she has not maintained by the sword; and, if she has maintained 
title to the Rio Grande by the sword, why, then the Government of the United 
States would be compelled to recognise that title. But Texas never did, never has, 
and never will, except as aided by the power of the United States, maintain title 
by the sword to one foot beyond San Patricio county. The Nueces was the geo- 
graphical division between her and Tamaulipas, and San Patricio was her western 
county, extending originally to the Nueces; but Texas, after her revolution, ex- 
tended that county a short distance beyond the west bank of the Nueces, so as to 
take in Corpus Christi. 

Texas passed the act of her Congress on 19th December, 1836, predicated on the 
right which she claimed to have acquired under her compact or agreement with 
Santa Anna. That compact or agreement gave her no power, no right, with refer- 
-ence to boundary. It was an agreement which, as was shown by the gentleman 
from Connecticut, (Mr. Dixon,) the other day. General Jackson repudiated — re- 
fused to recognise as of any binding validity upon anybody. What right, then, did 
Texas acquire under it? Why, by virtue of the constitution of Mexico of 1824, 
Santa Anna had no power to make a treaty; he was not the acting President of 
Mexico. It was true, if he had been at home, in the city of Mexico, he would 
have been; but the constitution of 1824 prescribed that, whenever the President oi 
the Republic of Mexico was in the field commanding her armies, the Vice President 
should perform the functions of President, These arc the words of that instrument; 



"The restriction of the faculties of the Pi-esident are the fnllowing;: First, the President cannot tnke 
command of the forces by sea or land, in ))erson, without the previous consent of the General Cong;ress; 
or, should it not be in session, without the Council of Governmem, by a vote of two-ihirds of ihe 
members present. When he takes the command with these requisites, the Vice President bhall admin- 
ister the Government.'" 

It will be seen, therefore, that when Santa Anna was in the field, his functions 
as President ceased; and as military commander, it is unquestionably clear that he 
had no right to make an agreement in regard to the territory or property of Mexico, 
except such as M'as personal only to himself, and those uniting with him. He did 
make such an agreement while a prisoner of war in the hands of the Texans, for the 
purpose of regaining his liberty, having no reference whatever to permanent boun- 
dary, and which would have been utterly nugatory if it had. There was no 
right acquired by Texas on the subject of boundary in consequence of that agree- 
ment. But if there had been, it was predicated on the idea that the agreement 
should afterwards be ratified — be made into a treaty by commisi!ioners to be ap- 
pointed on the part of Texas, who should meet commissioners on the part of Mex- 
ico, i/i the city of Mexico. No coinmissioners were appointed on either side. But 
Texas, of her own will, passed the law of 183S, defining her boundary line to 
be the Rio Grande. She had no right to do it. It was an act of usurpation — the 
usurpation of territory over which she had acquired no control by revolution, by this 
compact, or by treaty. 

Then, if the act of 1836 was not passed by authority on the part of Texas, if she 
acquired no right by it, how could ve have acquired a right by it, even though we- 
had adopted it? Unquestionably we could acquire none. But, in point of fact, we 
did not recognise the act of 1836 as being obligatory upon us by the terins of annex- 
ation. Every body knows that the cause of the rejection of the Tyler treaty was, 
that it proposed to annex Texas, to the Rio Grande, to the United States. The gen- 
tleman shakes his head. I refer him to the course of debate on that question, to 
the resolutions introduced by the distinguished Senators who opposed that treaty, 
and he will there see that one of the prime causes of opposition to it was, that it 
proposed to annex a part of Mexico. By many of the distinguished men of the gen- 
tleman's own party it was opposed on that very ground. The terms of annexation, 
as provided in the joint resolution, were so shaped as to avoid the difficulty which 
had been encountered in the annexation of Texas by the Tyler treaty. And they 
were made so with design; done, not simply for the. purpose of procuring Texas, but 
done by a party, banded together from one end of the country to the other, with the 
express and deliberate view of deceiving the people of the country on that very 
question. Why, need we now to be told, that all over this country, when the oppo- 
nents of annexation declared that annexation was identical with war, its advocates 
ridiculed the idea, and endeavored to make the country believe there would be no 
war? But gentlemen now turn about, and frankly acknowledge they have been 
■wronp-. The gentleman from Maryland told the House the other day that we pro- 
cured the war at "the cost of annexation." Yes, sir, he spoke most truly; the sad 
experience of the last two years had not failed to convince even the warmest advo- 
cates of annexation of that fact. The joint resolution of annexation, as I verily 
believe, was shaped with especial reference to deceive the people of this country on 
the question of annexation. 

I repeat, therefore, that Texas having acquired no title by the act declaring her 
boundary to be the Rio Grande, none could have been conferred on the United 
States, if we had adopted that act. But we did not. In the constitution of Texas, 
with which she was received into the Union, and which was adopted after the joint 
resolution for annexation had passed, there was an express provision that all acts 
of her Congress were affirmed and continued in full force, except those in derogation 
of the Constitution of the United States., or in violation of the terms of annexation. 
Now, the joint resolution of annexation, as one of its most prominent features, 
contained a provision that the question of boundarv should be left to be .settled by 
jieo'otiation. Ahd if the que.'-licn cf boundary v.cie to be f cltlcd I y rcfictislicn, I:cw 
eould thij act of 1836 be other\vi:.c than inconustent with the joint resolution? 



That act fixed the boundary without negotiation, declared the Rio Grande to be the 
western boundary, and, as a matter of course, by the express terms of" annexation, 
had no binding force upon the United States. Texas, herself, could not have re- 
garded that statute as affirmed by her constitution; for, by excepting all acts in con- 
flict with our joint resolution, she, in point of fact, repealed the act of 19th Decem- 
ber, 1836. Such is the legal effect of her own constitution, solemnly made and rati- 
fied, and by its terms she must now stand. 

But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kaufman) told the committee, the other day, 
that the act of 1836 was regarded by Texas as conferring jurisdiction uj^on her to 
the Rio Grande. And to what extent? Why, the gentleman said, from the mouth 
of the Rio Grande to its source. I was astonished to hear that declaration from the 
gentleman from Texas — that Texas had jurisdiction and occupancy from the mouth 
to the source of the Rio Grande! Why, the gentleman seemed to have forgotten 
that we were now in the 7nili'ary possession of that country. Although, according 
to the argument of that gentleman, and of others, we annexed this W'hole country, 
from the mouth to the source cf the Rio Grande, to the United States, as part and 
parcel of Texas, yet the President of the United States w'as now exercising military 
jurisdiction over a part of this territory; and the people there, under this martial 
law, w'ere now being called upon to determine of themselves whether they would 
be annexed to the United States or not! And not only this, but the President of the 
United States W'as also trying to buy that country, or to hold it as indemnity for the 
expenses of this war! — though, at the same time, the gentleman from Texas, the 
gentleman from Maryland, and others, told us it was a part of Texas as actually an- 
nexed to the United States! 

The gentleman from Maryland went further; and, in order to show that the Con- 
gress of the United States had recognised the Rio Grande as the boundary line, 
alluded to another fact, which he declared to exist, viz., that Congress had organ- 
ized revenue districts in the State of Texas in such a way, as that one was bounded 
on the west by the Rio Grande. I again quote the gentleman's words. He says: 
"Subsequently Congress organized the revenue districts in Texas in such wise, that 
one district w^as bounded on the west by the JWicces, another on the east by the 
JVueces and the west by the Rio Grande.'''' 

Now, sir, I should be very much obliged to the gentleman from ]\Iaryland if he 
would show me that part of the history of the proceedings of Congress from which 
he derives this information; if he will show^ me, anywhere on our statute book, a 
single act of the Cong-ress of the United States which defines the Rio Grande as 
the western boundary of any collection district. Congress did pass an act, on the 
31st December, 1845, establishing one revenue district in Texas. It declares: 

"That the State of Texas shall be one collection dislrict, and the city of Galveston the only port of 
entry, to which shall be annexed Subine, Velasco, Matagorda, Cavallo, La Vaca, and Corpus Christi, 
as ports of delivery only." 

On the 3d March, 1847 — after Gen. Taylor was ordered to the Rio Grande — a 
new collection district was formed out of that part of the State of Texas "south and 
west of the counties of Matagorda and Wharton, and including said counties." For 
this district Saluria, on the northeasterly part of the island of Matagorda, was con- 
stituted the port of entry, and Matagorda, Aransas, Capano, and Corpus Christi, 
ports of delivery only. Notwithstanding the unqualified terms of these laws, and 
the fact that before the order of the 13th of January, 1846, was issued there was 
created but one revenue district out of the whole State of Texas, the gentleman 
from Maryland asserts that there were two districts established; the western 
boundary of one of which, he has informed us, was the Rio Grande! The lact 
is, as appears from the acts from w^hich I have read, that Corpus Christi was the 
extreme southwestern ^o/-f of delivery, and no where beyond that point did either of 
these acts pretend to establish either a port of entry or of delivery. Not a word is 
said in them about the Rio Grande; nor is there to be found any provision whatso- 
ever for the extension of our revenue districts to the Rio Grande. Congress did not 
intend, by these acts, to go beyond the point to which the jurisdiction of Texas ex- 



tended at the time of annexation. That point was the county of San Patricio, which 
had been extended so as to embrace Corpus Christi and the territory immediately 
adjacent, but had never, at that time, gone farther. 

Mr. McLane. I admit that the port of delivery established by this law was at 
Corpus Christi; but there was an inspector of customs appointed under the law to- 
reside at Point Isabel, on the Rio Grande. 

Mr. Thompson continued: 

Then, sir, if the President did, as the gentleman from Maryland says he did, ap- 
point an inspector of customs at Point Isabel, he clearly violated the law of Congress^ 
and appointed an inspector within territory occupied by Mexico, where he had no 
right to collect a single dollar of customs, or to exercise jurisdiction in any way 
whatever.* 

Mr. Grinnell, with the consent of Mr. Thompson, remarked, that by an under- 
standing with one of the members from Texas during the last session, it was agreed 
that the disputed territory should not be embraced with these revenue districts. 

Mr. Thompson resumed: 

Mr. Chairman, the law which I have read proves just what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (]Mr. Grinnell) says Avas understood at the time of its passage; that 
is, that though ports of delivery were established at several places, there were none 
at Point Isabel, nor beyond Corpus Christi. Congress never legislated for the dis- 
puted territory until after the order of the 13th January, 1846, was issued. 

After the commencement of the war gentlemen would find that post routes were 
established from Brasos de Santiago to Point Isabel and Fort Brown. Before the 
war there were none beyond Corpus Christi, and hence gentlemen Avere in error in 
supposing that Congress had recognised the disputed territory by the establishment 
of post routes, as some had declared. The post routes cstabli;-hed since the com- 
mencement of the war had been rendered necessary to facilitate communication with 
the army. The reason why Congress did not establish post routes beyond Corpus 
Christi was, because the county of San Patricio was only originally recognised as 
extending to the Nueces river; but Texas, after she acquired her independence, 
exercised civil jurisdiction beyond it, to a shrrt distance, so as to embrace Corpus 
Christi. It was true, however, that, since this war had commenced, she had ex- 
tended her jurisdiction to the Rio Grande, so far as her legislation could do it. This 
I find, fn m an article copied into the Intelligencer of this morning, is attended 
with some embarrassment. The pajier to which I refer contained a paragraph^ 
which was in these words: 

" From the settlements on tlie Rio Grande to the county seat at Corpus Christi it is full five days 
journey, througli fM()i/(/e)')iess co«7i/ci/, rt/ino5( rfesfiVit^e ()fit'«fer, NOT a habitation in the whole dis- 
tance, and dangerous to Irai-clters on account of the Indians and bands cf laivless J\Iexica7is. When per- 
sons residing on the Rio Grande border of the county are cited to appear at Corpus Chrisli, it takes 
at least two weeks to comply with the citation, besides subjecting them to the difficulties and dangers 
of the road." 

It will be seen, then, that it is an easy matter to acquire territory ; for, so 
soon as Texas was annexed to the United States, the Texan Congress passed an act 
to extend her boundary to the Rio Grande; and thus it was that the "stupendous 
desert" was legislated into Texas, and constituted part of it. This part of the } ub- 
lic history of the country is perfectly familiar to every gentleman to whom I now 
address myself; but there are some peculiar features of it, growing out of the re- 
cognition of Texas Itself, which show that, till this war commenced, Texas did not 
consider her title to the Rio Grande to be good. I have here an extract written by 
one of the Presidents of Texas, who is now sitting as a United States Senator at 
the other end of the Capitol, which sustains me in this position. I find it in "Hous- 

* Since this speech was delivered I have examined, and find the fact to be, that no inspector of cus- 
toms was ever appointed for Point Isabel. The law did not authorize such an officer. The act of 31st 
December, J845, provided for a collector at Galveston, and a surveyor foj' eacli of the ports of dtlivery. 
That of March 3, 1847, provided fur a collector at Saluria, a deputy collector at Aransas, a deputy 
collector for Sabine, and for surveyors at the several ports of delivery created by that act — all cast of 
Co)-pus Cliristi. By the Blue Book of 1848 I find that all the officers of customs ajipointed in Texas 
by the President, reside at Galveston, Velasco, and tSabine. 



ton and his Republic," as a part of a private letter to Mr. Murphy, the charge des 
affaires from this country to Texas. Pre.-ident Hou:-ton says: "The line of Texas 
running with the Arkansas, and extending to the great ijesert, would mark a nat- 
ural boundary between Texas, or a new and vast republic to the southwest." 

Besides this, I have the authority of Geyi. Memxican Hunt. This gentleman was 
sent to this country, in 1837, by the government of Texas, to solicit the admission 
of Texas into our Union. In one of his letters to Mr. Forsyth, then Secretary of 
State, he said: "Texas has a territory estimated at wccrr 200,000 square miles." 

How vastly, Mr. Chairman, have the proportions of Texas increased since that 
time. What is the State of Texas now, as bounded b}^ gentlemen on the other side 
of the Hall, and by her Representatives in this House? A territory of near 500,000 
square miles! From less than 200,000 she has become a country of near 500,000 
square miles, and all by her own legislation! Gen. Hunt — her own authorized am- 
bassador — declared that, in 1837, she had less than ojic-ha/foi what she now claims. 
Her revolution was then at an end, and she has acquired no additional territory by 
treaty, purchase, or conquest, since. From whence, then, does she derive her 
right? The plain and honest truth is, that she has not now, and never had, any 
right beyond that which she acquired by her revolution. That right never did ex- 
tend to "the v-^lley of the Rio Grande. 

But I have other authority from Texas herself. In 1837 Mexico captured two 
Texan vessels, the Independence and Julius CEesar, and their crews. In May of 
th3t year, the House of Representatives of Texas passed a resolution directing that 
the armed schooners Brutus and Invincible should be sent^ vjith ajlag of truce, to 
Brasos Santiago, to treat with the Mexican authorities there for the release of these 
vessels, and of such Texans as might be held as prisoners. Would Texas have 
done this — v;ould she have sent a flag of truce to ^'Mexican authorities^' within her 
own limits, if she had been conscious of a rightful claim to the valley of the Rio 
Grande? But she knew she had no such claim, and therefore she was compelled, in 
1887, to recognise the rightful possession and ownership of IMexiro. Nor, in my 
opinion, would she have pretended otherwise to this day, if she had not succeeded 
in '■'coquetting'''' this Government into the assertion and maintenance of her claim. 

The entire history of Texas, previous to her annexation to this country, shows 
that what I have said is true. If gentlemen will take the trouble to look at that his- 
tory, and read especiall}' the journals of the Texan Congress, which are to be found 
here in our library, they will fmd that this territory, between the Nueces and the 
Rio del Norte, was by all parties, after the act of Wth December, 1836, admitted to 
be the territory and property of Mexico, and to be in the occupancy of the P»Iexican 
people. And yet the gentleman from Baltimore told us, the other day, that Mexico 
had taken an off'ensive position there, and we a defensive one. ^Vhy, the people 
who were in the valley of the Rio Grande were born there and reared there; 
it was their home, and they v.ere driven from the homes of their childhood 
by the troops which the President of the United States sent there. Talk 
of those people taking an offensive position! How could they offensively oc- 
cupy a place where they had been born and raised, and the possession of 
which they had never yielded up to any body? The valley of the Rio Grande 
w^as not a part of Texas; and the President had no authority to issue the order 
of the 13th January, 1846, sending our troops there. I have said, and I now repeat, 
that in my opinion, if the history of this annexation movement was truly written, 
it would show that it was all a plan of deception from the beginning, and that our 
Government had been plunged into all the present difficulty by a concealment of the 
truth regarding it. At the very time we were discussing, in this country, the ques- 
tion of annexation, and the probabilities of a war which it would bring on, our 
charge d'affaires to Texas had the power in his possession to order American troops^ 
beyond the line of the United States into Texas. He had po\ver to do this before' 
the consummation of annexation. He had authorit}' from the President in his 
pocket to do that which the President himself had no pow^er to do — to march the 
troops of this Union beyond the line of the Union. 

Mr. McLane. Was that a Whig, or a Democratic President? 



8 

Mr. Thompson. It was the act of John Tyler, to which you and your party 
became particeps criminis — for when we cast him off, as no longer wo.Lhy of our 
association, he became fit material for you to use. It was done by the administra- 
tion of President Tyler, and the present President of the United States ratified and 
confirmed all he had done in regard to the annexation of Texas. 

The order of the 2Sth June, 1848, which sent Gen. Taylor from Fort Towson to 
Corpus Christi, was issued before the consummation of annexation. Texas, having 
been rejected by Mr. Van Buren's administration, refused to come into our Union 
when solicited to do so by Mr. Tyler, until she received a secret pledge from our 
charge d\iff aires that we would maintain her boundary to the Rio Grande. I have 
no doubt that such a pledge was made, although not communicated to the people of 
the United States. Gen. Houston, in his letter of July 18, 1847, to the editor of 
the Texas Banner, and in reply to a letter of Mr. Tyler's, says: 

" The Executive of Texas was not moved by the " dirert proposition for annexation," but by the 
pledges given to him by Mr. Murphy, charge iroffaires of the United States. Before an adjunct commis- 
sioner was appointed by the President, pledges were demanded hy him of Mr. Murphy, based upon iVIr. 
Upshur's letter, that a military and naval force of the Uiiiied States, sufficient for the defence of Texas, 
should be placed al the disposllion of the President, and held subject to his orders.''' 

What "pledges^' are here referred to? Were they raerely that Texas should be 
protected within her just limits, in the event of annexation? Such would have been 
the result of annexation without pledges. Did they have reference to the defence 
of Texas on this side the Rio Nueces? Texas weU knew, and so did the people of 
this country, that Mexico would never again atteinpt to repossess herself of the ter- 
ritoiy which she then held by virtue of her revolutionary right. These ''pledges," 
therefore, could have referred to nothing else than the occupancy of the territory in 
the valley of the Rio Grande; to consummate which arrangement, thus secretly 
made without the knowledge of the people of the United States, the army and navy 
of the United States were "placed at the disposition of the President" of Texas, 
"and held subject to his order;" and that, too, before the people of Texas had rati- 
fied the act of annexation. From whence did the President of the United States 
derive authority, thus, without lavv- or public sanction, to pledge the people of the 
United States? It was but a portion of the studied system of party diplomacy by 
which the scheine of annexation was begun, prosecuted, and en^ed — a scheme 
whose chief workers knew neither Constitution nor law, when they stood in the 
way of their cherished purpose. 

But I have other evidence that this pledge of which I have spoken was made as 
an inducement to the annexation of Texas. Mr. Anson Jones, Secretary of State of 
the Republic of Texas, on the 6th of August, 1844 — six months before the joint reso- 
lution for annexation was passed by the Congress of the United States — addressed a 
letter to Gen. Howard, then our charge d'' affaires to Texas, in which he says: 

"In view of these facts, and adverting to the assurances given to this Government by Gen. Murphy, 
charge d'affjiires of the United States, on the 14th of February, and by Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of 
State, on the 11th of April last, the undersigned, by direction of his excellency the President, has the 
honor to request that Gen. Howard will, as early as convenient, take the necessary steps to cause to 
be carried into effect these assurances, and to extend to Texas the aid lohich the present emergency requires." 

Gen. Howard, like an honest man and a patriot — as he most unquestionably was — 
and having the welfare of his country more at heart than the consummation of any 
mere party scheme, refused to execute these "assurances," as they had been given 
by Mr. Murphy. He replied to Mr. Jones, that the Government of the United 
States would go as far to redeem them " as it constitutionally might," but that they 
had raised no " obligation on the President of the United States to interpose, by af- 
fording mihtary aid to Texas in the [then] present emergency." 

Sir, if this matter had been left just where Gen. Howard placed it, we should, 
fin all probability, have had neither annexation nor war. But it did not so remain. 
The adininistration of Mr. Tyler, after the death of Gen. Howard, gave to Mr. Don- 
elson the power to do what Gen. Howard had refused to do — that is, to ratify the 
"assurances^' and "pledges''^ of Mr. Murphy; and thus, as the means of procuring 
Texas, we became involved in that series of measures which have led to this war; 



thus we became fettered in a net, cunningly devised to decoy, and which has most 
admirably answered the ends of those who wove it. By reversing the decision of 
«Gen Howard, power was given to INIr. Donelson to order our troops into Texas be- 
fore annexation, if necessary for its defence. They were "placed at the dispositioa 
of the President" of Texas, "and held subject to Aw orders." This authority was 
not revoked, but continued by the present administration. How it has been exe- 
cuted is to be seen from the fact, that since the 28th of June, 1845, when Gen. 
Taylor was ordered to advance to Corpus Christi, we have been gradually advancing 
towards a state of war, under a system of policy controlled only by the Executive 
and his advisers — about which the people have not been con:;ulted, and of which 
they have known nothing, until the past has become the reality of history. 

The present President of the United States, when he issued the order to General 
Taylor to march to the Rio Grande, was but following in the line of precedents 
which had been furnished him by this annexation movement. That order was a 
clear, palpable, and direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. If the 
territory on the Rio Grande belonged to Mexico, and was in the possession of Mexico, 
it was a violation of Mexican rights, and was an act of war. If it Avas merely dis- 
puted territory, the President had no right to take possession of it in violation of 
the law of Congress, which provided that the title should be determined by "nego- 
tiation." Even though it had been justly claimed by Texas, he had no right, while 
the peaceable citizens of Mexico were occupying it, to attempt their dislodgement 
by military force, until he had obtained the consent of the Congress and the people 
of tlie United States. In any possible aspect, it was an act of usurpation which 
has found no parallel in our history, but will hereafter be looked at only, I trust, as 
evidence of tiie mad ambition of those who contrived it, and as warning against its 
imitation by the desolation it has produced. 

Was the march of our army to the Rio Grande necessary to the defence of any 
Texan possessions there ? Texas had no possessions there. Every foot of that 
great valley, from Brazos de Santiago to Santa Fe, was in the occupancy of the 
Mexican people — an occupancy which had never been disturbed by Texas or any of 
her armies. How could the President of the United States disturb it, without a vio- 
lation of Mexican rights ? Gentlemen upon the other side of the House have wholly 
failed to answer this question, but struggle hard to avoid its force by declaring that 
the President acted in conformity to the recommendations of Gen. Taylor. The 
gentleman from Maryland, still going farther than any of them, says, that the order 
of the 13th January, 1846, was not issued " until months after General Taylor, who 
was entrusted with the defence and protection of Texas, had repeatedly urged and 
■advised the movement, upon high considerations of military and /)o/?7/cff/ propriety." 

Now, sir, words are very significant things, and a single word, misapplied, often 
does great mischief. Other gentlemen have asserted that General Taylor advised 
the movement to the Rio Grande. Such was the argument of my friend and col- 
league over the way (Mr. Robinson.) But I have heard nobody, except the gentle- 
man from Maryland, (Mr. McLane,) say that he '■^ repeatedly urgedP it. This accu- 
sation does very great injustice to Gen. Taylor — a gallant and weU-tried soldier; 
for he never either " urged'''' or repeated his advice of such a movement. On the 
contrary, all the suggestions made by him upon the subject were qualified before the 
issuance of the order. Yet, notwithstanding this, the gentleman says he " repeat- 
edly urged''^ the marching of the troops to the Rio Grande. Sir, it is not easy to 
mistake the true position of Gen. Taylor in this matter. He never did positively 
recommend the occupancy of the Rio Grande valley. He wrote hypothetically, 
whenever he wrote to the Department on the subject; always having reference to 
the '■'•ultimate destination" of his army as previously indicated to him by both Mr. 
Bancroft and Mr. Marcy. I repeat, therefore, that to represent him in a different 
position from that in which his published letters place him, is doing him great, very great 
injustice. If there is nothing in his position to do so, his distinguished services, at the 
head of a gallant army, should guard him against such accusations. It is but a poor re- 
ward for his toils now to be told, after he has braved the dangers of the camp and 
field to bring this war to an honorable termination, that he has interfered with the 



10 

political policy of the Government, when the strict line of duty called him to another 
and a wholly different sphere. As a soldier, he has obeyed the orders of his Gov- 
ernment; as a commander, he has covered himself wath imperishable fame; but in 
neither capacity has he ever undertaken to prescribe a course of poliiical policy for 
this Administration. He knows his duty too well, and 1 do not believe that he 
would swerve from its straightest line for power, patronage, or place. 

Mr. McLank. Will the gentleman from Indiana read the extract which I hand 
him from General Taylor's letter of November 7, 1845', to settle the question of fact 
at issue between us ? 

Mr. Thompson. Certainly, sir, I will. It is as follows: 

" Tl'e position now occupied by the troops may perhaps be the best while negotiations arc pend- 
ing ; al any rate, until a disposition shall be manifested by Mexico to protract them unreasonably. 

***♦*<•#****# 

"On the hypothesis of an early adjustment of the boundary, and the consequent establishment of 
permanent frontier posts, I cannot urge too thoroughly upon the Department the necessity of occupy- 
ing those posts before the warm weather shall set in." 

Does not the gentleman see and know, that v.'hat is said by Gen. Taylor in this let- 
ter of the 7th November, 1845, has reference expressly to what had previously 
passed between him and the Department > I will read the whole letter. 

Headquarters Army of Occupation, 

Corpus Christi, Texas, J^ovember 7, ]845. 

Sir : I respectfully enclose a copy of a letter from Commodore Conner, comn.ianding the home 
squadron, which I received by the " Saratoga," sloop of war, on the 5lh instant. The intelligence 
communicated by the Connnodorc^wiU, doubtless, reach ilie seat of Government long before the receipt 
of this letter. 

The communication from the Secretary of War, dated October ]G, was received and acknowledged 
on the 1st and 2d instant. I purposely deferred a detailed reply to the various points embraced in that 
communication until I could receive an answer to mine of October 4, v/hich covered (at least in part) the 
same ground. The inteili^cence from Mexico, however, tends to modify, in some depre, the vieivs ex- 
pressed in that coinmimicdtion. The position new occupied by the troops may, perhaps, be the best 
while negoliations are pending, or at any rate until a disposition shall be manifested by Mexico to protract 
them unreasonably. Undtr the supposition thai such may be the view of the Department, I shall make no 
movement from t!iis point, except for the purpose of examining the country, until further instructions are re- 
ceived. You will perceive, from my orders, that reconnoissance are almost constantly in the field, the 
officers of engineers and topographical engineers rendering v.Uuable service on those duties. 1 refer 
you to the reports made by iho.se officers to the chiefs of their own bureaux for the information which 
is thus procured in relation to the country. An examination of the harbor of Brazos Santiago will be 
ordered in a few days — as soon as a proper vessel shall become disposable for that service. 

In case no movement is made this season towards tlie Rio Grande, I may find it necessary to detach 
a portion of the army a short distance into the interior, where wood can be more readily procured than 
here. But in no case do I deem it necessary to hut the troops. Sheds, with platforms, on which to 
pitch the tents, were extensively used in camps of position in Florida, and will, I cannot doubt, form a 
sufficient protection here. 

On the hypothesis of an early adjustment of the boundary, and the consequent establishment of per- 
manent frontier posts, I cannot urge too strongly upon the Departmentthenecessity of occupying those 
posts before the warm weather shall set in. A large amount of sickness is, I fear, to be apprehended, 
with every precaution that can be taken; but the information which I obtain leads me to believe that a 
summer movement would be attended with great expense of health and life. As in Florida, the winter 
is the best season for operations in Texas. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Z. TAYLOR, 

Brevet Brig. General U. S. A., commanding. 

The Adjutant General of the Amy, Washington, D. C. 

Sir, it will be seen by this letter — in the very sentence which follows directly the 
first one I have read at the request of the gentleman from Maryland, that Gen. Taylor, 
expressly said: "Under the s^ippositio7i that such. 7nay he the view of the Department y 
I shall make no movement from this point, except for the purpose of examining the 
country, \miv\ further instructions are received." Could language be more explicit ? 
Could he have employed any phraseology which would more completely have 
thrown the responsibility of a movement from Corpus Christi upon the Administra- 
tion } Sir, there is no mistaking language so plain. Those who run may read and 
understaird it. 

But this letter settles another question against the gentleman from Maryland. I 
have shown that the sentence following the first I have read, at his request, proves 
that General Taylor did not here either urge or recommend the movement to the 



11 

HIo Grande. The sentence Immediately preceding the first one, read at his instance, 
will also prove that "the intelligence from MexicOj" then in his possession, tended 
*'to modifu, in some degree, the views expressed in his letter of 4th October, 1845." 
What was that letter ? In it he says : 

" It is with great deference that I make any suggestions on topics which may become matter of 
dehcate negotiation ; but if our Government, in f;ettling (he (]i:cstion of boundary, maf:cs the line of the Rio 
Grande an ulimatum, 1 cannot doubt that the setilcment will be greatly facilUnlcd and hastened by our 
taking possession at once of one or two suitable points on or quite near that river." 

Now, Mr. Chairman, what does all this amount to ? Does not the gentlem.an see 
that the suggcsiio/is of General Taylor were hypolhetical merely ? He had, as I have 
already shown, been Informed, both by Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Marcy, that his 
^^ultimafe destination" was the Rio Grande: and o?i the hypoihesis only that the 
army were destined by the Government to occupy that territory, he wrote to the 
Administration that if it wci'e to he done, for certain reasons, it was better that It 
should be done at once. But as a political recommendation to this Government 
General Taylor never did unconditionally advise that our army shall be marched 
to the Rio Grande. I cannot consent that such an Impression should be sought to 
be made without denial, which denial I now make, and will not retract, without 
evidence greatly more than I have yet seen. 

Every word he has said on the subject, both In his letter of October 4th, and in that 
of Novetnber 7th, Is hypothetical merely — only conditional upon the fact that the Gov- 
ernment intended to pursue the policy which had been already Indicated to him by 
the Secretaries of War and the Navy. But hypothetical as It was, It was qualified, 
withdrawn, taken back, if you please, In the letter of November 7th, In which he 
distinctly Informed the Administration tliat he '■^should make no movement''^ from 
Corpus ChrlstI ^'imtil further iiistructions are received.''^ Never did any man more 
explicitly declare his designs, and It is passing strange that the}^ should be so wholly 
misconceived. 

We have been repeatedly told by gentlemen here, that tlic refusal of the Mexican 
Government to receive Mr. Slidell was a sufficient justification of the order which 
marched the troops to the Rio Grande. There is, to my mind, something exceed- 
ingly singular In this part of om- history. If I understand It it is this. Our Govern- 
ment learned through Mr. Black, our consul, that the Mexican Government would 
receive, not an envoy extraordinary, but a commissioner . Such a commissioner was 
never sent; but an envoy extraordinary w^as sent. This minister was Mr. Slidell, 
who went to Mexico and presented his credentials. He was not received by the 
adinlnlstratien of H^errera, he then being in power. The refusal to receive him Avas 
communicated to this Government In a letter from Mr. Slldcll, dated 27th December, 

1845, which Avas not-received in Washington until the *23d of January, 1846 — ten 
days after the order to Gen. Taylor to march to the Rio Grande was issued. These are 
the facts, as communicated to Congress by the President with his war message of 11th 
May, 184G. 

Mr. Slidell, In his letter of 27th December, 1845, says : 

"On the 21st instant I received from Mr. Pena y Pcna his promised reply, conveying the formal and' 
unqualified refusal of the Mexican Government to receive me in the character for which I am commis- 
sioned. Of this most extraordinary document I send a copy." 

This letter of Mr. Slidell Avas the first written by him after his rejection. He had, 
on the 17th of the same month, Avrltten to Mr. Buchanan that his refusal A\'as "a 
possible (I ought perhaps to say a probable) event;" but he had not then been re- 
fused. He Avas not rejected by Herrera's administration until the 21st December. 
This the President admits in his Avar message. He says : 

" The Government of General Herrera, there is good reason to believe, was sincerely desirous to 
receive our minister; but it yielded to the storm raised by its enemies, and, on the '2\st of December, 
refused to accredit Mr. Slidell upon the most frivolous pretexts." 

The President, then, has predicated his apology for the order of 13tli January, 

1846, upon this rejection. Could he have known it at the time this order Avas Is- 
sued? I have already said that Mr. Slidell's letter communicating it was not re- 
ceived here until ten days afterwards; and I make this remark upon the authority 



12 

of the Secretary of State. In his letter to Mr. Slidell, of January 28, 1846, Mr. 

Buchanan says: "Your despatches, dated the 27th and 29th December last, were 
received nt this Dspartment on the 23o? instant.''^ 

What room is there, then, for longer debate about this question? The facts are 
too plain to admit of cavil. General Taylor ions ordered to the Rio Grande before 
the President had heard one word from Mr. Slidell on the subject of the final action 
of the Herrera administration. He was ordered there, and our navy was ordered to 
the Gulf, while the Administration was professing to desire a peaceable adjustment 
of all difficulties with Mexico. He was ordered there without authority of law, 
though Congress was in session, and in palpable violation of the Constitution. He 
was ordered there, because t^e cherished policy of this Administration could be car- 
Tied out in no other way than by forcing Mexico into a war, as some excuse for the 
conquest of her territory. 

Sir, the President and his friends did not consider Mr. Slidell as finally rejected^ 
Ijecause he had been refused by the Herrera administration. Far from it. On the 
12th of March, 1846 — txoo inonths after General Taylor had been ordered to the Rio 
Grande — Mr. Buchanan wrote to Mr. Slidell: 

"I am directed by the President to instruct you not to leave that Republic until you shall have made 
a formal demand to be received by the new government.^'' 

At the same time he transmitted to him a letter, accrediting him to General 
Paredes, the then President of JNIexico. Mr. Slidell had already, before the recep- 
tion of this letter, made an attempt to negotiate with the new Adininistration; and, 
on the 1st March, 1846, had written to Mr. Buchanan from Jalapa, that his letters 
from Mexico spoke '■^confidently of his reception.'''^ But, on the ISth of March, he 
again wrote to Mr. Buchanan that he had received a ^'■peremptory refasalP from the 
Mexican Government, and had demanded his passports. And before the intelli- 
.gence communicated in this last letter of Mr. Slidell reached here, the Administra- 
tion remained confident, even after the letter of 27th December, 1845, that Mr. 
Shdell would be received. I find in the "f//won," the acknowledged organ of the 
Government, the following, as late as the 10th February, 1846: 

" Letters were received last night, in this city, by special conveyance from Mexico and Vera Cruz. 
The letters from the city of Mexico arc to the \Mh of Januarii, at whicii time Mr. Slidell was in tlie 
■city, but was expected to arrive at Jalapa on the 17th. He had obtained an escort to tliat place. JVbt 
the slightest insult had been offered to him, as has been reported; but he had been received ivith much courtesy, 
and he had been welcomed in the society of the metropolis as an elegant and accomplished gentleman. He had 
jnot been received by the Government in his official capacity ; neither had they declined his recep- 
tion ; and in fact, judging by appearances, there was no reason to believe that he ivouldnot be as acceptable to 
the Govei'nment of Paredes as to that of Herrera.'''' 

Here was an annunciation to the country, made by authority of the Administration 
' — nearly one month after Gen. Taylor had been ordered to leave Corpus Christi — 
that Mr. Slidell had not been rejected! And if gentlemen would take the pains 
to look into the documents, they will see that the " Union " then spoke truly. The 
letter of the 14th of January was evidently written by Mr. Slidell to Mr. Buchanan, 
to which the writer of the article in the " Union " must have had access. In a letter 
.of that date, Mr. Slidell refers to the formation of the Paredes cabinet, and speaks 
in very complimentary terms of Mr. Castillo y Lanzas, the minister of foreign rela- 
tions. He says: 

" He is an intelligent and well educated gentleman, and were he permitted to exercise any control, 
would, as I have reason to know, from free conversation icith him, at a time when he liad no idea of be- 
ing appointed to his present place, be decidedly favorable to an amicable adjuslment of all questions pending 
ielioeen the two governments.'''' 

In the same letter he also says: " My notes to Mr. Pena y Pena have been sub- 
mitted to the council of government, but have not yet been considered.''^ All this was 
done and said after the issuance of the order of 13th January, 1846, that fatal order 
which had plunged this country into the present ruinous and protracted war. Yet, 
notwithstanding all this array of facts, we are told by gentlemen here, and by the 
President himself, and by his whole party, that Mr. Slidell was rejected by the Mex- 
ican government before this order was issued, and that it was issued in consequence 
thereof. Sir, there is nothing in the history of this transaction to sustain or justify 



13 

this assertion — for it is nothing but assertion. On the contrary, I do verily believe, 
that this Administration did not desire that Mr. Slidell should be received, but that 
it has used the pretence of his rejection as excuse for the war. It is manifest to my 
mind, that it had deliberately resolved to bring on the war, at any hazard to the 
country, or why ehould the President now refuse to communicate to this House his 
instructions to Mr. Slidell? And having thus plunged the country into it, if any man 
is honest enough or bold enough to call upon the President for information in rela- 
tion to its origin, or, in any other way, to question his executive infallibilit}^, he is 
forthwith denounced as " giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Such is the lan- 
guage used on the other side of the House towards gentlemen on this side, as if that 
oft-repeated and stereotyped phrase could now be dignified by repetition in this Hall. 

We were told, sir, at the beginning of the war, that we were fighting with Mexico 
because she owed us debts and would not pay them. I fear if this were so, that some 
of the States of this Union would be exposed to the danger of a war. The gentlemen 
from Mississippi, and myself and colleagues, perhaps, might get into a scrape, as 
well as some on this side of the mountains, if it were so. And even the gentleman 
from Maryland might not escape. According to his argument, if Great Britain should 
declare war because some of our States did not pay their debts, the war would be 
just on her part and unjust on ours. But this was all a mere pretence. The truth 
was, the Administration was determined to bring on the war, and to do it they sent 
Mr. Slidell to Mexico, with the determination that he should be rejected. At the 
same time a fleet was placed in the Gulf, and the army prepared for marching to the 
Rio Grande. If gentlemen would look at the reasons for the ultimate rejection of 
Mr. Slidell, it would be seen that they were assigned by Paredes to be that the army 
was marching into Mexico on the north, while the navy was ready to blockade the 
Mexican ports on the Gulf. It was not to be expected that Mexico should treat un- 
der such circumstances. It was contrary to the Mexican character that they should 
be forced to negotiate, and the President knew it. And Paredes did not improperly 
judge the Administration; for, while a pretended pacificator was sent by our Govern- 
ment to Mexico, provision had already been made for moving our army to the Mexi- 
can frontier and placing our navy in her ports, which the President must have known 
would cause the Spanish spirit to rebel. In " anficipation^^ of the rejection of Mr. 
Slidell, it was said, the orcler was given. Yes, it M'as designed that itshoidd be so; 
and, in anticipation of the desired result, Gen. Taylor w^as sent to the Rio Grande. 
Thus the ball was opened. Then came that famous act, witli a falsehood on its face, 
declaring that the war existed by the act of Mexico, by which the minority here 
were placed in the position either to refuse supplies or to swallow that false "pream- 
ble." Under the power which the rules gave them, the majority forced it through 
this House. But if the fact were as the preample asserted, what occasion was there 
for the preamble at all.? No such preamble was adopted in 1812. Then Congress 
was content with a simple declaration of war, without a preamble. Truth, neither 
then nor now requires disguise. The very fact that the preamble is there, proves 
that the friends of the administration were afraid to trust the question to the calm 
judgment of the country. But that judgment will be exercised in despite of all their 
denunciations, let them come as thick and fast as they may. 

But when this act of Congress was passed, under pretence that General Taylor's 
army was about to be cut off, what did the President do? Why, sir, instead of send- 
ing the troops intended by Congress for that purpose, he organized a portion of them, 
and sent them to New Mexico and California to make conquests of those countries, 
in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the letter of the law itself. He 
sent forces there with instructions to establish civil governments, when he had only 
the power to hold them, even after conquest, by militai-y authority. The result was 
the most singular state of things now existing in both New Mexico and California. He 
directed the oath of allegiance to this Government to be administered to the inhabi- 
lant-5 of those countries, and, in case of refusal, they were to be treated as traitors, 
and hung. Legislatvires were organized, otiicers both appointed and elected, ami 
the people directed to vote on the question of ann^xr/tion to the United Slates! 
And this voti.ig, too, be it borne in mind, is to be had under fear of being charged 



14 

with treason, if the citizens of those countries refuse obedience to the laws thus im- 
posed on them by the sword. If they should now ask for admission into this Union 
under these circumstances, we shall doubtless be told that they are exceedingly 
anxious to be annexed, when the whole, in point of fact, will be done by the power 
of the sword — that stern arbiter, which has settled the fate and destiny of millions 
before. 

This is the same power with which Tamerlane overrun the countries of the East — 
by which, as history proves, so many other portions of the globe have been subdued 
and desolated. It is the power of the purse and the sword now doing that which, 
under institutions such as ours, is confided alone to the people — a power, too, Avhich 
is exercised in the name of Democracy, but is used as a deadly stab at the vitals of 
the nation. So far as the question of power is concerned, I do not care whether 
Mr. Slidell was or was not rejected by the Mexican Government. The President of 
the United States was equally guilty of a violation of the Constitution of the United 
States when he issued the order of the 13th January, whether Mr. Slidell was or 
was not rejected. Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary of State, pointed out, in his letter 
to Mr. Slidell, the course which the Executive ought to have pursued. He said if 
Mr. Slidell should be "finally" rejected, he should report that fact to the President, 
and it would "then become the duty of the President to stibmit the whole case to 
Congress, and call upon the nation to assert its just rights, and avenge its injured 
honor." But did the President do this? Did he submit the "whole case," or any 
part of it, to Congress.? Did he "call upon the nation" for its authority in the exe- 
cution of his designs? The representatives of the people were then sitting in this 
Hall. Here was the war-making power of the Union. Here, by their representa- 
tives, were the people of this country, ia whose hands alone are these great issues 
placed by the Constitution. Why, then, did not the President pursue the course 
pointed out by the Secretary of State, by the Constitution, and b}^ the past practice 
of the Government? It did not answer his designs to do so. It would not have 
comported with those secret purposes to which I have already referred. I believe, 
as sincerely as I do that we are all ultimately responsible to a God of justice, that if 
the people of this Union had not been cunningly, cautiously, and most studiously 
deceived by the annexation party, they never would have consented to annex Texas. 
It has brought a train of calamities along with it, from the effects of which we may 
never recover. And now, when these calamities are coming fast upon us, when the 
storm is gathering over our heads, we are told here in Congress — I heard the argu- 
ment this morning — that we must look carefully to all expenditures from the federal 
Treasury, that the Administration rna}'^ have more money to carry on the war. 
Every thing connected with the home department of this Government is to be treated 
with neglect; our rivers are to be unimproved; our harbors unprovided for; the or- 
dinary expenses of the Government retrenched; the resources of the country unde- 
veloped; the industrial pursuits of the people neglected; and every thing that tends 
to a nation's wealth and prosperity abandoned, that millions on millions of money 
may be expended in a war begun and prosecuted under the pretence — to use the 
language of the gentleman from Maryland — that it was our duty to give moral and 
religious institutions to the Mexicans! And what are the moral and religious insti- 
tutions which gentlemen are so solicitous to give to Mexico? I saw an article in the 
^' Union" of this morning which will, perhaps, throw some light upon the mode we 
have adopted to reform the morals of the Mexican population. It is an order from 
the civil and military governor of the city of Mexico, as follows : 

" Office of Civil and Military Governor, 

J\'alional Palace, Dec. 30, 1847. 

"On and after the 1st day of January, 1848, three gmning-houses will be licemed and recognised aslmo- 
ful in the rity of Mexico. Each one of these will pay in advance a monthly tax of §500, and all other 
gamiiig-iioiises are positively prohibited. 

"After the specified date, all personal property found in any house or place in which public gaming, 
without license, is detected, and all money and property employed in such unlicensed public gaming- 
house, will be confiscated , and the persons so detected will be subject to imprisonment for thirty days, 
and to be fined, iiccordiiig to circumstances, from fifty to two hundred dollars. 

"By itie Governor: *'R. P. Hammoxd, Secretanj, S{c.^* 



15 

This is a most admirc.ble device to improve and refine the morals of the people of 
Mexico! I had always thought that the Democratic party professed an utter abhor- 
rence of monopolies of every kind; but here is such a monopoly as I have never 
seen before — a monopoly of gainbling-shops, authorized by the President of the 
United States, under the pretence that the money raised thereby is a contribution 
from the people of Mexico for the support of the army! A most admirable mode is 
this, indeed, to propagate the doctrines of civil and religious liberty amongst a peo~ 
pie whom, as gentlemen tell us, it is our duty to elevate and dignify! 

Note. — Had I not been prevented, by the operation of the hour rule, it was my purpose to have 
noticed another position of gentlemen who advocate the course of the Administration. 

It is the assertion that the movement of the army from Corpus Chrisii to the Rio Grande was not 
made uniil months after the iVJexican Government had declared war, and had oidered troops to cross 
the Rio Grande and advance into Texas. 

A few facts, it seems to my mind, will show that this position cannot be maintained, and that Mexi- 
co had really made no efficient prejiarations for war. 

General Taylor, in a letter from Corpus C^isti on the 20th August, 1845, says : 

" Caravans of traders arrive occasionally from the Rio Grande, but bring no news of importance. 
They represent that there are no regular troops on that river, except at Matamoras, and do not seem 
to be aware of any preparations for a demonstration on this bank of the river." 

In another letter, dated 26th August, 1846, in speaking of the necessity of calling out volunteera 
from Texas, he says : " I feel confident, hoicever, that such necessity tcill not arise." 
Again, on 6th September, 1845, he writes : 

" I have the honor to report that a contidential agent, despatched some days since to Matamoras, 
lias returned, and reports that no extracruinary preparations are gniiJg fonrard there ; that the garrison 
does not seem to hare been increased, and that our consxd is of opinion there irill be no declaration o/ jror." 

lii the same letter he says that the agent reported that " the mass of the people, with whom he 
mingled, is opposed to a war u-ith u^." 

In speaking of his force being increased by militia, he says : " I am entirely copjidcnl that none teiU 
be required.'''' 

Again, on 4th October, 1845, he writes: 

" Mexico having as yet made no positive declaration of war, or committed any overt act of hostili- 
ties, I do not feel at liberty, under my instructions, particularly those of .July 8, to make a forward 
movement to the Rio Grande without authority from the War Department." 

On the 7ih November, 1845, General Taylor forwarded to Washington a letter to himself from 
Commodore Coimer, dated " Off Vera Cms," October 24, 1845, in which Commodore Conner says : 

"No troops (Mexican) have marched towards the frontier for a length of time ; and I am told by 
Mr. Parrott, who left Mexico a few days since, that many of Arista's otHcers had returned to that 
city in a state of poverty.'''' 

Again, on 19ih November, 1815, General Taylor writes — in speaking of a portion of the forces un" 
■der his command — that " should the present pacific aspect of our Jiexican relations continu£, it will net be 
iiecessary to continue this force in service, except possibly one company as guides.''' 

On the 21st March, 1846, while on his mnrcii to the Rio Grande, when three miles south of the 
Arroyo Colorado, General Taylor again writes : 

" From the best information I am able to obtain, the enemy is notinforce nn this side of the Rio Grande. 
A /fio ra;ic/(eros are still on the route hence to Matamoras. It is believed that there may be Jieor/y 
2,000 troops in that place, but what proportion of regular troo))s I cannot state with confidence. The 
arrival of General Ampudia is expected from the interior, but the accounts I receive of his movements 
are quite contradictory." 

From this accumulation of evidence from General Taylor himself, it is perfectly certain that he had 
no such information as is now pretended to be possessed by gentlemen lure, in regard to the war 
movements of Mexico. 

But there is still more. Paredes, the President of Mexico, published a proclamation, in which ha 
declared that he had nopou-er to declare n-ar, that the power to do so was alone given to the " August 
Congress" of Mexico. This proclamation was published in the " Union" of May 4ih, 1846. 

In an editorial article in the same paper of May 5, 1846, it is said : 

" Despatches were received yesterday from General Taylor to the 6th of April— several day.s earlier 
•than other letters which had been previously received from the camp by other sources. General 
Jimpndia h(ui not arrived at Matamoras at the date of these despatches of the Gth. Tliere were said to be at 
that time not more than 2,000 Mexicans, badly armed and organized. Our troops felt perfectly secure in 
their own strength and position. The General had raised a battery on this side of the river, and on 
the 6th he had mounted the cannon in their places, so as to command the town of MaUimoras." 

In the same paper, of the same date, there is also published a lettrr from Vera Critz, dated I7tl« 
April, 1846, in which it is said that—" There is every reason to betitne the Mexican Govtmmenl will care- 
.fullft abstainfrfm committing any act of hostility ngaiusl the United Stales''' 

Wc have also evidence of the pacific discus tion of Mexico, durm^ the fall of 1845, in ihc letter 



16 

of Isaac D. Marks, our consul at Matamoras, to General Taylor, a copy of which letter was sent to 
Mr. Buchanan in October, 1845. 

He states that he had been informed by General Arista that " the Cabinet of Mexico was disposed 
to enter into an amicable arrangement with the United States in relation to the boundary, and other 
momentous questions." 

Also, that General Arista had " pledged his honor" to him " that no large body of Mexican troops 
should cross the left bank of the Rio Grande ; that only small parlies, not to exceed 200 men, should 
be permitted to go as iar as the Arroyo Colorado, (20 leagues from the Rio Grande,) and that they 
would be strictly ordered only to prevent Indian depredations and illicit trade.'''' 

There is also the conversation between General Worth and General Vega, on the 28th of March, 
1846, on the Rio Grande. As reported to Congress by the President, with his war message, the fol- 
lowing is a portion of it: 

*' General Worth. — Has Mexico declared war against the United Stales.' 

" General Vega. — J^o. . 

" General Worth. — Are the two countries still at peace.' 

"General Vega,— Fe5." 

It is also evident, from whatpassed between General Taylor and General Ampudia, after Genera! 
Taylor reached the Rio Grande, that, if the AniRrican troops had even then been withdrawn to the 
JSfueces, the war would not have occurred, for the plain reason that, although we had invaded Mexico, 
she was unwilling to fisht us. 

On the 12ih April, 1846, General Ampudia wrote to General Taylor, requesting liim " /o break vp 
his cawp, and retire to the other bank of the J^ueces river," pending negotiations in regard to Texas ; and 
telling him that, if he remained " upon the soil of the department of Tamaulipas, it will certainly re- 
sult that arms, and arms alone, must decide the question." 

This array of proof conclusively shows that Mexico was in no condition to make war upon the 
United State's at ihe time of the march of General Taylor to the Rio Grande ; that his march there, by 
order of the President, so exasperated the Mexican Government as to force it to war without prepa- 
ration ; that the constituted authorities of Mexico had not declared war against us ; that there was no 
effective army on the Rio Grande until after General Taylor reached there ; that even after he reached 
the Rio Grande war might have been avoided if he had returned to the Nueces, which he could not 
do without disobedience of orders; and that, in whatever aspect the matter can be viewed, the Piesi- 
dent, of his own will, brought on the war by ordering our army to advance and plant its batteries 'm 
Ihe very midst of a Mexican population, who, as General Taylor had written to the Adjutant General, 
OQ the 7th January, 1846, were " in favor of peace." 



t W4 



^^ /Jlfe\ \../ :Mm^ %..^^ /Jfe\ "^-..Z ^^^^^ 
















0^ ♦I'"- V" 











v^ *»::4.< 










^Ao^ 



'bV^ 



V-o^ 



/ "°^'-.^*/ "*-^,*^.-\/ ^°^'-^-/ < 



• N* 






















Vi- ° " " ♦ <^ 



3''^-. 


















'^-> -<^ ' -*SilK'* '"^^ .c,-?^"^ *>.%? 



-^^^^ 









<r^ *'T; 



1^': -ov^' i 















•» o 



.^ ^oV^ 



r« '^^.^ 



^^-^^^ 




JP-T!, 













■^^<*^ 



'^^%*' 



■^* \^lp/./"'*/°"w^-'./% '• 





*^.*" •' 




9 »p 

""'>- ^°^^i^'> .//^iX ^'^:r^'> 








^• /"•%., W§s^-' .^-^^ • 




-oK 








"^o^ 















